Download Causes of unity and disunity in Psychology and Behaviorism

International Journal of Clinical and Health
Psychology
ISSN: 1697-2600
[email protected]
Asociación Española de Psicología
Conductual
España
Virués-Ortega, Javier
Causes of unity and disunity in Psychology and Behaviorism: An encounter with Arthur W. Staats'
Psychological Behaviorism
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, vol. 5, núm. 1, enero, 2005, pp. 161-173
Asociación Española de Psicología Conductual
Granada, España
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33701010
How to cite
Complete issue
More information about this article
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org
Scientific Information System
Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
© International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
ISSN 1697-2600
2005, Vol. 5, Nº 1, pp. 161-173
Causes of unity and disunity in Psychology and
Behaviorism: An encounter with Arthur W.
Staats’ Psychological Behaviorism1
Javier Virués-Ortega2 (Universidad de Granada, España)
(Recibido 26 de abril 2004 / Received April 26, 2004)
(Aceptado 2 de julio 2004 / Accepted July 2, 2004)
ABSTRACT. The following is a synthesis of a number of interviews with Arthur W.
Staats. For the last fifty years A. W. Staats has made important contributions in
developmental psychology, learning Psychology, emotional behavior, language, behavioral
theory and theoretical unification in psychology. His theoretical proposal, Psychological
Behaviorism (PB), is illustrated as a non-eclectic framework for unification between
behaviorism and Psychology. In this document we give special consideration to: (a)
historical factors in behaviorism history, including similarities and pathways of influence
between first- and second- and third-generation behaviorism; (b) theoretical fragmentation
in contemporary Psychology; (c) the role of eclecticism as an artificial framework for
unification in Psychology; (d) unification in psychology; (e) differentiation between PB
and Radical Behaviorism with regard to functional analysis, emotional operation/classic
responses, and their theoretical conception of the relationship between basic and applied
research; and (f) key concepts in PB, including basic behavioral repertoires, threefunction theory, multi-level theory, experimental-longitudinal method, behavioral use
of psychometric tests, and PB theory of intelligence.
1
2
The author would like to show his appreciation and gratitude to Arthur W. Staats for his accessibility and
kindness. The author thanks Stephen N. Haynes, Karen C. Kloezeman and Joanne E. Ogata for their
suggestions for linguistic improvement of this paper. This work was developed during an internship
granted by the Andalusian Service of Health (Servicio Andaluz de Salud) at the Hawai’i State Hospital and
the University of Hawai’i.
Correspondence: Facultad de Psicología. Universidad de Granada. 18071 Granada (Spain). E-mail:
[email protected]
162
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
KEYWORDS. Psychological behaviorism. Radical behaviorism. Unification. Eclecticism.
Basic behavioral repertoires. Theoretical study.
RESUMEN. En este estudio teórico se presenta la síntesis de varias entrevistas mantenidas con Arthur W. Staats. Durante los últimos cincuenta años A. W. Staats ha
realizado relevantes contribuciones en psicología del desarrollo, psicología del aprendizaje, comportamiento emocional, lenguaje, teoría conductual y unificación teórica de
la psicología, entre otras áreas. Su propuesta teórica, el conductismo Psicológico, se
presenta como un marco no ecléctico de unificación entre conductismo y psicología. En
el presente documento se discuten especialmente: (a) aspectos históricos del desarrollo
del conductismo, incluyendo las similitudes e influencias entre conductismos de primera, segunda y tercera generación, (b) fragmentación teórica en Psicología, (c) papel del
eclecticismo como marco artificial para la unificación de la Psicología, (d) unificación
de la Psicología, (e) distinciones entre conductismo radical y paradigmático con respecto a análisis funcional, conducta emocional, concepción teórica del vínculo entre investigación básica y aplicada, y (f) conceptos clave del conductismo psicológico (e.g.
repertorios básicos de conducta, teoría de las tres funciones del estímulo, teoría multinivel, método experimental-longitudinal, uso conductual de tests psicométricos, teoría
paradigmático-conductista de la inteligencia).
PALABRAS CLAVE. Conductismo psicológico. Conductismo radical. Unificación.
Eclecticismo. Repertorios básicos de conducta. Estudio teórico.
RESUMO. Neste estudo teórico apresenta-se a síntese de várias entrevistas com Arthur
W. Staats. Durante os últimos cinquenta anos A. W. Staats contribuiu de modo relevante para a psicologia do desenvolvimento, psicologia da aprendizagem, comportamento
emocional, linguagem, teoria comportamental, e unificação teórica da Psicologia, entre
outras áreas. A sua proposta teórica, o comportamentalismo psicológico, apresenta-se
como um marco não eclético de unificação entre comportamentalismo e Psicologia. No
presente documento discutem-se especialmente: (a) aspectos históricos do desenvolvimento
do comportamentalismo, incluindo as semelhanças e influências entre comportamentalismo
de primeira, segunda e terceira geraçıes, (b) fragmentação teórica na Psicologia, (c)
papel do ecletismo como marco artificial para a unificação da psicologia, (d) unificação
da Psicologia, (e) distinçıes entre comportamentalismo radical e paradigmático com
respeita à análise funcional, comportamento emocional, concepção teórica do vínculo
entre investigação básica e aplicada, e (f) conceitos chave do comportamentalismo
psicológico (e.g. repertórios básicos de comportamento, teoria das três funçıes do estímulo, teoria multi-nível, método experimental-longitudinal, uso comportamental de
testes psicométricos, teoria paradigmático-comportamental da inteligência).
PALAVRAS CHAVE. Comportamentalismo psicológico. Comportamentalismo radical. Unificação. Ecletismo. Repertórios básicos de comportamento. Estudo teórico.
Arthur W. Staats is one of the few living behavioral theorists who has developed
a comprehensive theoretical program toward the explanation of complex human behavior.
His research has focused on extending and supporting his theoretical framework,
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
163
paradigmatic or psychological behaviorism (PB). This approach, according to Staats,
solves the shortcoming of Radical Behaviorism (RB) and is the framework for the
third-generation behaviorism by (a) emphasizing specific human learning processes
(e.g. the basic behavioral repertoires [BBR], cumulative-hierarchical learning that enable
a behavioral treatment of such phenomena as personality and intelligence), (b) establishing
a more developed theory for showing the causal role of emotion and language in
determining behavior, and (c) interrelating the different major fields of psychology in
the process of unifying behaviorism and psychology. Arthur W. Staats was born in New
York in 1924. His mother was a Russian emigrant from Tetiev, Russia. After the death
of Staats’ father the family moved to California when he was three months old. He
acknowledges that he comes from a family of «radical thought» with a leftist and
atheist tradition. Staats served in the navy during World War II. He then enrolled in the
University of California where he obtained his PhD in 1956. His dissertation was
entitled: A behavioristic study of verbal and instrumental response hierarchies and
their relationship to human problem solving (Staats, 1956). Initially he was employed
by the Arizona State University where he was driving force in establishing a modern
behavioral department. Here he arranged for figures like I. Goldiamond, J. Greenspoon
and J. Michael to join the department. Before his appointment to the University of
Hawai’i in 1966 where he is currently emeritus professor he was a professor at Berkeley
and the University of Wisconsin. He retired in 1999 (see a biography in Cloninger,
2000, p. 278).
This interview is the result of several encounters with A. W. Staats where the most
relevant topics of his research and interests were extensively discussed. The interview
was performed on Staats’ lanai (porch) overseeing an extraordinary view of Wai’alae
Beach in the neighborhood of Kahala, Honolulu in January and February of 2004.
Staats edited the manuscript twice before sent for publication. The taped interview is
available by request at the author’s address.
Psychology and disunity
-In 1933 Edna Heidbreder regretted that psychology was at that time a divided
science. «Psychologists,» she added, «are continually looking upon the work of their
colleagues and finding that it is not good. And with little hesitation, or with none at
all, they expose the weaknesses and the flaws they find» (p. 3). She was optimistic
about the future. In time, psychology would gather enough evidence «to make a single,
solid system» (p. 17). Unfortunately, the current state of the subject has not improved
since Heidbreder’s days. The continuous emergence of new «sciences» without any
common theoretical heritage, contributes to maintaining high levels of incommensurability
within a preparadigmatic science (Kuhn, 1962) as we can see psychology to be (Staats,
1983). RB, although possessing generalizability and analyzing some non-behavioral
works into behavioral terms (Skinner, 1945, 1974, 1987; Watson, 1924/1930), has largely
failed to provide a unifying approach in that undertaking. Some have even proposed
widening the schism between psychology and behavior analysis (Fraley and Vargas,
1986). Additionally, the RB approach to psychology is in regression (e.g., Haynes and
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
164
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
O’Brien, 2000, Figure 2-1). One of the major topics that has arisen in your work is the
disunity of psychology (e.g. Staats, 1981, 1983). What characteristics of PB would
make a better approach account for unification of psychology than those of RB?
-A very basic thing about psychology, and about behaviorism as part of psychology
is that you won’t understand some of the actions of behaviorism unless you understand
behaviorism as a part of a disunified science. Psychology is a science that really has
different operating features than the more established sciences. As I have pointed out
extensively, all sciences started with disunity (Staats, 1983). Kuhn described the disunified
state of physical science several hundreds of years ago, stating that all the major
experimenters had different, opposing theories although they all did scientific studies.
That created a chaos of unrelated knowledge (Kuhn, 1962, pp. 13-18). That’s the way
psychology is now, and that’s how behaviorism is. There are many major theories each
with its different theory language. And the work done in the framework of those theories
is considered to be separate, different and in competition. There is not a building way
of operation, rather there is rivalry among those in the same area, for example among
the behaviorisms or among theories of personality. There is no goal of unifying the
common portions of the theories. And that occurs throughout psychology and behaviorism
as a part of psychology. If we go back to the days of C. L. Hull, E. C. Tolman, and
B. F. Skinner, you can see it very clearly. Skinner never referred to Hull. They are both
reinforcement theorists. They both worked with the same principles, but the interactions
with the different schools are minimum. That is really disadvantageous for a science.
One will develop one thing that will appear in the other one with a different name. Let
us consider the idea of concept formation. Hull worked in concept formation very early
(Hull, 1920) and Skinner introduced the term abstraction in his 1953 book; both are
exactly the same concepts. He never mentioned Hull and his empirical work (e.g. Hull,
1943), so if you work in concept formation you would never pull these things together.
You see different terminologies that separate people and their researches. That is a deep
characteristic of American psychology, and a deep characteristic of RB. It has been
influenced by other behaviorisms very widely but Skinner never referred to that. Most
of the followers in the different schools don’t read each other; although the leaders
must, when they find something of value and use it they translate it into the theory
language of their school as though it is indigenous to that school.
-Is mutual enrichment between behaviorisms possible?
Yes, but is not manifest. There was much in common among the classic behaviorisms,
and still is. As an example, after we started behavioral applications, there were people
who still denied verbal psychotherapy as a topic to be concerned with. I did a paper
on that in 1972 (Staats, 1972, see also Staats, 1963, pp. 509-511) and it was really
criticized by a radical behaviorist3 (Tryon, 1974). In 1988, 16 years later there was an
article written by S. A. Hamilton, a radical behaviorist, it was called A behavioral
formulations of verbal behavior in psychotherapy (Hamilton, 1988). The delay in the
3
It is remarkable that W. W. Tryon later became himself a researcher within PB framework. In fact was him
who proposed the term «Psychological Behaviorism» (Tryon, 1990).
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
165
inclusion of a behavioral psychotherapy in RB lasted 16 years. There is a tremendous
disadvantage on that. If you read about science a very basic thing is communication,
enabling a building on the basis of people’s works that came before. That is lacking in
this example and many others.
As a result of a rivalrous methodology, right now it is impossible to bring together
all the behavioral approaches to exert their whole power. PB right from the beginning
rejected that approach. One of the features of my 1963 book is that it does not follow
the separation of different schools (Staats, 1963). Throughout that book I have integrated
things that are important regardless of where they come from and I have cited where
they come from. So PB has been constructed to be a unifying framework, a behaviorism
that uses and cites prior developments so it can produce the next generation of
advancement. That is carried over into unification with materials outside of behaviorism.
Behaviorism has always made such uses of psychology, but has never recognized that
as a part of behaviorism. If you read J. B. Watson’s book of 1924, you will see that the
psychological phenomena that are referred to are then interpreted in behavioral principles
(Watson, 1924/1930), but those psychological phenomena are never given importance
and credited to traditional psychology. PB has always used a different methodology.
The study of a different phenomenon by traditional psychology may not be completed,
it may have errors in it, it may use mentalistic concepts, but nevertheless, be an important
phenomenon. PB will recognize that value but interpret the phenomenon in behavioral
principles. That will then make it possible to make a functional analysis of that
phenomenon, while recognizing that traditional psychology was valuable in discovering
and developing the study of the phenomenon. For example, intelligence -rejected by
RB as a mentalistic concept- has been subjected to behavior analysis by PB. PB asked
what is this phenomenon? It is individual differences between people in the goodness
of their behavior and in the goodness of how they achieve in the classroom. What can
intelligence be? PB’s analysis considers intelligence to be defined by learned basic
behavioral repertoires (BBR) that enable the child to behave better; to learn better in
the classroom. Without those repertoires the child is not capable of learning. That
conception opens a whole field of exploration. Can you measure intelligence? Can you
train the child to be intelligent? The conception is an unification. That unification
recognizes the value of intelligence and the work that went into composing intelligence
tests along with its own behavior analysis (Staats, 1990). This constitutes another example
of behaviorisms disunity. That is, in the last issue of The Behavior Analyst J. Moore has
an article where he accepts intelligence and makes a beginning behavioral interpretation
of intelligence (Moore and Cooper, 2003). Thus as has occurred frequently before, the
PB approach is beginning to appear in RB, but without identification. Any further
development of intelligence in RB will then appear to arise from RB (Staats, 2003).
According to Skinner, his experimental analysis of behavior (EAB) was the
methodology to use to study human behavior. S. W. Bijou used EAB methodology with
mental retardation (e.g. Bijou, 1965), O. R. Lindsley did so with psychotics (e.g. Lindsley,
1959) and other Skinner students did so with different subjects. But they all were
working with simple responses such as pulling a plunger. Their work was valuable in
showing that the different types of subjects followed the principles of reinforcement in
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
166
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
their behavior. But, if behaviorism would have stayed within that program, it would
have gone no further. It was necessary to break away from that framework; complex
human behavior can’t be studied using EAB. Although this is not recognized, the
progress of the modern behavioral movement has involved this process of breaking
away from various central points of RB. For example verbal psychotherapy was opposed
by RB until it had been shown indisputably in behavioral work that it was effective as
I just mentioned before. Now there are many behavior analyst whose allegiance is to
RB who work with a form of psychotherapy. An important breaking away involves
methodology for research with humans; Skinner’s RB first intended that the EAB was
sufficient to the exclusion of others.
-One of the appeals of PB is that many different methods are acknowledged to
provide relevant information on the study of human behavior and behavioral repertories.
Early in your career you have stated that: «[The] psychometric approach and the
experimental S-R approach can be considered to have a complementary relationship»
(Staats, Staats, Heard, and Finley, 1962, p. 111). For example, items of the StanfordBinet can be arranged to assess a child’s verbal-labeling repertoire, verbal motor
repertoire, etc. (Staats, 1963). How can traditional assessment instruments evaluate a
BBR?
One of the things that the PB analysis does is it looks at the traditional fields and
makes behavioral analyses. For example, what is intelligence? In answering that question
let us ask what did Alfred Binet do when he selected his problem items? He gave those
problems to different children and then established at what ages a certain percentage
of the children were able to answer the problems and so he age-graded those items. He
also correlated those items with children’s school achievement. Afterward, he selected
those items that predicted achievement, that was a crucial step. When he did that he
guaranteed that the test composed of those items would be predictive of school
achievement. The test was then considered to test intelligence, because it predicted
classroom performance. So PB asked why there was a relationship between test scores
and school achievement? The answer is that intelligence items measure behaviors,
repertoires that the child needs to learn well at school. If the child doesn’t have those
behaviors, then it doesn’t have the ability to achieve in school. My work with children,
convinced me that child development really involves acquiring repertoires of behavior
and those repertoires are the foundations for learning other repertoire and so forth. That
is the nature of child development. With this analysis, and the empirical studies that
back it up, one can understand why intelligence tests can predict achievement because
of the way they are constructed. They are constructed because they measure behaviors
that predict the ability to learn other behaviors. PB says it is necessary to analyze what
are the behaviors that predict achievement in school. They are language and motor
repertoire of the child that are important as foundations for learning additional skills.
Psychological Behaviorism saw that intelligence items measured repertoires that PB
had already studied behaviorally. With that knowledge of important BBR it was possible
to analyze intelligence test in terms of the basic behaviors they measure. That research
was purely behavioral, it only deal with behavioral things.
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
167
-Is there difficulty in the fact that those instruments have been developed with
statistical and topographic criteria which neglect the function of the behavior?
Very essential in the example I have given is that underlying the statistical procedure
there is a behavioral process. The tests constructed with statistics are really measuring
behavior. The fact that statistical procedures are involved is irrelevant. Central is the
behavior of responding to the items of the test. Some of them are to ask the child to
count or to ask the child to name different objects, etc. This is easy to see at the young
ages. If you go on the behavior measured on the intelligence test become very complex
and the analysis must be very complex. At the younger ages the behaviors measured
can be readily analyzed and training program set up to teach the child the behaviors
(Staats and Burns, 1981). The same PB conceptual analysis and methodology also
applies to personality tests. It may not be a simple task to analyze what the behaviors
are that composed a personality characteristic but psychometrics can help in identifying
what the behaviors are. For instance, the MMPI will categorize people (e.g. schizophrenics);
if you look at the items, they are measuring behaviors. If a person crosses the street to
avoid speaking to someone, if a person has suspicions about people... these are behaviors.
When you find a behavior that predicts something, for instance paranoid schizophrenia,
that is an important behavior. We created intelligent children by using this analysis and
the PB procedures for training children. If you want someone not to be schizophrenic,
then make sure he doesn’t develop the behaviors that schizophrenic people have. This
combination of PB theory and analysis opens up such a vast potential for research that
I think people don’t really grasp what PB really is.
-Probably psychology’s theoretical disunity leads to eclecticism. This tendency
seems to be particularly prominent in regards to technical eclecticism in interdisciplinary
settings (e.g. Virués, Santolaya, Buela-Casal, and García-Cueto, 2003). Under applied
circumstances the unity of action is not a matter of theoretical debate, but necessity.
The work of M. R. Goldfried (e.g. Goldfried, 1995) and J. C. Norcross in integrative
psychotherapy (e.g. Norcross and Beutler, 2000; Norcross, Beutler, and Caldwell, 2002),
the study of empirically supported therapy relationships (e.g. Ackerman et al., 2001),
and the increasing interest in evidence-based treatments are a few examples of this
process. The phenomenon of eclecticism can be observed even within behavioral
psychology (Staats, 1999a). What are the shortcomings of eclecticism as an artificial
framework for unification in psychology?
First, I may say that that clinical interest in unification came after PB analyzed and
highlighted the need for unification. With respect to your question let me say that
eclecticism takes different things and puts them together, but not in a way that they are
unified, that is, interrelated in terms of principles. The different things are left different.
It is a combination of apples and oranges. That is quite different than a unification that
shows that the same principles apply to the two phenomena or two realms. Then
knowledge in one realm will translate to advances to the other realm. When you can
elaborate one framework by incorporating findings from another framework, you can
enlarge the first framework and make it more useful. That is described in the philosophy
of science and in PB’s methodology (see Staats, 1983). PB is not eclectic in any way;
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
168
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
everything that occurs in PB is analyzed in terms of the same principles. From
psychotherapy back to animal learning there is a clear line of connection in term of
principles. That is not true in eclecticism, which can occur in behavior analysis practices.
As an example, a lot of behavior therapists in their practice will use psychometric tests
(see Watkins, Campbell, and McGregor, 1990). It makes no theoretical sense for them
to do that, there is no justification in principle. When PB has analyzed psychometric
tests in terms of the same principles, however, that is no longer eclectic. For instance,
when a PB analysis has been made of the repertoires measured on an intelligence test
that is not eclectic, and the analysis has empirical implications. You can train the child
to improve those repertoires. Then, they will do better on the tests and better in school.
G. L. Burns and I did a series of studies that showed exactly that (e.g., Staats and
Burns, 1981). Would it be important to be able train such repertoires and make children
more intelligent? Everybody recognizes that importance.
Radical Behaviorism (RB) and Psychological Behaviorism (PB)
-A. W. Staats has repeatedly pointed out the relevance of the BBRs that individuals
bring to a given learning situation (e.g. Staats, 1971, 1994, 1996). However, the EAB
has focused on the study of the near environmental events that account for the variability
of behavior (e.g. Baer, Wolf, and Risley, 1968; Hanley, Iwata, and McCord, 2003).
Which limitations of this concept of the functional analysis of behavior could be expected?
PB presented a program for behavioral research with children (see Staats, 1963;
Staats and Butterfield, 1965) that was followed by later behavior analytic researchers.
M. Wolf, for instance, was a student of mine in the first place (e.g. Staats, Finley,
Minke, and Wolf, 1964; Staats, Staats, Schutz, and Wolf, 1962). PB only differs in not
being limited to functional analysis, EAB, or any other behavioral methodology. Actually,
let me suggest that PB’s study of repertories of behavior, BBRs, as explanations of
intelligence scores is just as much a behavior analysis as reinforcing pulling a knob, or
using time out (which PB invented) to lessen undesiderable behavior.
Skinner said that he was not a learning theorist. He wasn’t really interested in
learning. And he wasn’t, strangely enough. You can see it in his work. For example, in
the EAB methodology the pigeons are first trained to peck the key. But that training
is considered irrelevant and is not studied. You train the pigeon to the behavior only
so that you can use the behavior to study the effects of reinforcement. You are not
interested in learning. You are not interested in how the pigeon comes to peck. It is that
focus on the immediate behavior and its consequences that excludes learning from
consideration. This is one of the important aspects of Skinner’s RB that PB has addressed.
PB says that learning is essential. Skinner was interested in the here and now.
I worked with my children, among other reasons, because an experimental-longitudinal
method was involved (e.g. Staats, 1977). Within that framework the experiments went
on for a long time; years. I worked with my daughter for years in her reading; something
like training my child to walk took me six months. We went through a number of steps
(Staats, 1996, pp. 135-136). You have to consider the long drawn out effect. That’s the
way you get the concept of BBR. You don’t get this concept in the EAB with a rat or
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
169
a pigeon. PB focuses on learning, including child learning. Only now are behavior
analysts of an RB persuasion becoming interested in learning (e.g., H. Schlinger, personal communication, January 12, 2004).
-One of the prominent discrepancies between the RB and PB theoretical schemes
is the two-level vs. multi-level approach to behavior. It has been proposed that human
learning has distinctive characteristics when compared with subhuman learning (e.g.
Gagne, 1965; Staats, 1981, p. 243). The transition of information within a two-level
account from basic to applied settings can be addressed by the elaboration or abstraction
of the same principles in more complex circumstances (Staats, 1981). Nevertheless,
these strategies could be shown to be insufficient given the distinctive nature of human
cognition, learning and language. Which methodological novelties are proposed in PB
to bridge the distance between basic and applied research in psychology?
Regarding Gagne’s position and mine. Gagne proposed that there were quite different
kinds of learning. Conditioning was the simplest. The ‘higher’ types of learning were
not derived from conditioning. My approach is different. Conditioning principles are
basic. But through conditioning, repertoires are learned that enable more advanced
repertories to be learned. That more advanced learning involves new principles. But
always the basic conditioning principles are operating.
Skinner’s idea, and this also applies to Hull, Watson, and the other major behaviorists,
was that once the basic principles have been established the task is just to apply them
to all kinds of complex human behavior. I say that this is not the case. The basic
principles are important in all human behavior but that is not the only thing that is
important. When two children are sent to school and the teacher tries to teach them
something one child does it very well and the other doesn’t. Why? The same principles
of reinforcement and classical conditioning apply to both. The reason is because the
children bring with them different repertoires. One child has learned attentive skills,
following direction skills, and other BBRs. The other child, although of the same age,
has not had the training opportunities to learn those repertoires. The first child will
learn many new things better than the second child. Those BBRs are part of the explanation
of the differences in the two children’s behavior. The conditioning principles are also
part of the explanation because the child learns the BBRs through reinforcement and
through classical conditioning. The study of the BBRs takes one to a different level of
study. That’s one reason why PB is a multi-level theory. It starts with basic conditioning
principles that function in all human behavior and learning, but other things also function
that have to be studied.
-B. F. Skinner acknowledged the parallelism between motivational factors, essentially
operant, and emotional operations, essentially classic (Skinner, 1953, p. 76, p. 165, p.
169; Skinner 1988/1989, p. 83). However, he did not elaborate on the relationship
between classical and operant conditioning in order to build a theory with more
generalizability potential. In PB, three main functions of the stimulus are assumed.
«[A] stimulus can elicit an emotional response, it can serve as a reinforcing stimulus,
or it can serve to direct (control) behavior» (Staats, 1994, p. 103, see also Staats,
1979). What theoretical progress is addressed by this statement?
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
170
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
Skinner mentioned emotional operations and classical conditioning (e.g., Skinner,
1953). But he never treats the topic systematically and changes his position in different
places. His focus was operant conditioning and he clearly said that classical conditioning
and emotion are independent from operant conditioning and behavior (see Skinner,
1975). He also showed his disinterest in classical conditioning and emotion in his
actions; he never studied classical or respondent conditioning, focusing on reinforcement
and reinforcement schedules (e.g. Ferster and Skinner, 1957), and he pushed others to
study reinforcement. That is unfortunate; everybody can recognize, even on a commonsense
level, that emotion affects behavior. How you feel affects how you do. So an approach
that can show the relationship between classical and operant conditioning and of emotion
and behavior is advantageous just on that level. PB recognizes the intimate relationship
between emotion and behavior by its the three-function learning theory (Staats, 1979).
Emotion is very fundamental to operant conditioning, namely, a stimulus has the
reinforcer function because it elicits an emotional response. If it didn’t elicit an emotional
response it would not be a reinforcer.
Why are we interested in which stimuli will elicit an emotional response in a
person? Because that will tell us what stimuli are rewards and what stimuli are punishments.
If two individuals respond emotionally in a different way, they will be affected by
different reinforcers. Take a person that is religious. Why does a religious person go to
church? Because there are reinforcing things in church. Why doesn’t an atheist go to
church? Because it is not reinforcing for them. Things in church do not elicit a positive
emotional response. We can explain peoples’ differences in behavior if we know what
stimuli elicit an emotional response for them. We showed that in a reaction time study.
We took religious and non-religious people. When a word that could be either a religious
word or a neutral word was exposed they had to pull either one type of word or the
other toward themselves. We found that if the word was a religious one, religious
people pulled the handle toward themselves faster than did non-religious people (Staats
and Burns, 1982). Religious subjects pushed religious words away from themselves
more slowly than non-religious subjects. So depending on the emotional value of the
stimulus subjects would exhibit stronger approach or avoidance behaviors. That tells
you that the behavior of religious people toward religious stimuli is determined by the
emotional responses to those stimuli. Within the principles of PB lies the important
subject matter of human emotion and motivation and the individual differences involved.
A future of unification
-The field has evolved from major theories in which relations were based on intertheory competition (e.g. Staats, 1983, p. 232) to theory atomization. Currently, those
micro-theories do not communicate. What do you consider to be the future of psychology
over the next half century?
-I think that unification is very central to the future of psychology and behaviorism.
Ahead of us lies the beginning of a tremendous task of establishing consensus and
unification in psychology. The problem is that peopl e talk about unity but they are not
doing the many tasks involved in unification (Staats, 1999a). The task for behaviorists
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
171
is drawing together things in RB, PB, social learning theory, behavior therapy, cognitivebehavior therapy and the other variants. Additionally, the PB goal is to unify with nonbehavioral psychology. There are so many redundant concepts in psychology, if someone
could collapse all these concepts it would be of major importance. How many concepts
of self-esteem, self-confidence, self-this, self-that are there? They are all considered
different. How many concepts of reinforcement are there? If you go to the literature
you will find all kinds of concepts that refer to reinforcement, but use different terms.
Having many terms for the same phenomenon makes the field complicated and difficult
for everyone. Advanced sciences do not allow such redundancy. Clearing redundancy
from psychology is one of the large tasks of unification. There are many others.
-Do you consider that unification will be done by a behavioral language?
-I think that PB has shown that a behavioral language can provide the framework
for a very broad unification. No other approach has shown such generality.
References
Ackerman, S. J., Benjamin, L. S., Beutler, L. E., Gelso, C. J., Goldfried, M. R., Hill, C., Lambert,
M. J., Norcross, J. C., Orlinsky, D. E., and Rainer, J. (2001). Empirically supported
therapy relationships: Conclusions and recommendations fo the Division 29 Task Force.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38, 495-497.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., and Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
Bijou, S. W. (1965). Experimental studies of child behavior, normal and deviant. In L. Krasner
and L. P. Ullman (Eds.), Research in Behavior Modification (pp. 56-81). New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Cloninger, S. C. (2000). Theories of personality: Understanding persons. Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved February 1, 2004, from http://www2.hawaii.edu/
~staats/bio.htm
Ferster, C. B. and Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Fraley, L. E. and Vargas, E. A. (1986). Separate disciplines: The study of behavior and the study
of the psyche. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 47-59.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 6, 1-9.
Goldfried, M. R. (1995). De la terapia cognitivo-conductual a la psicoterapia de integración.
Barcelona: Desclée de Brouwer.
Hamilton, S. A. (1988). Behavioral formulations of verbal behavior in psychotherapy. Clinical
Psychology Review, 8, 181-193.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., and McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior:
A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147-185.
Haynes, S. N. and O’Brien, W. H. (2000). Principles and practice of behavioral assessment. New
York: Kluwer.
Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven psychologies. New York: The Century company. Description: Student’s
ed.
Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of the evolution of concepts. Psychological Monographs,
123.
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
172
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindsley, O. R. (1959). Reduction in rate of vocal psychotic symptoms by differential positive
reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 269.
Moore, J. and Cooper, J. O. (2003). Some proposed relations among the domains of behavior
analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 69-84.
Norcross, J. C. and Beutler, L. E. (2000). A prescriptive eclectic approach to psychotherapy
training. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 10, 247-261.
Norcross, J. C., Beutler, L. E. and Caldwell, R. (2002). Integrative conceptualization and treatment
of depression. In M. A. Reinecke and M. R. Davison (Eds.), Comparative treatments of
depression (pp. 397-426). New York: Springer.
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operant analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52,
270-277.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: MacMillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1975). The steep and thorny way to a science of behavior. American Psychologist,
30, 42-49.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior? American
Psychologist, 42, 780-786.
Skinner, B. F. (1989). The operant side of behavior therapy, Recent Issues in the Analysis of
Behavior. Colombus, Ohio: Merril. (Original work published 1988).
Staats, A. W. (1956). A behavioristic study of verbal and instrumental response hierarchies and
their relationship to human problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Los Angeles.
Staats, A. W. (1963). Complex Human Behavior. New York: Holt, Winehart and Winston.
Staats, A. W. (1971). Child, learning, intelligence and personality: Principles of a behavioral
interaction approach. New York: Harper and Row.
Staats, A. W. (1972). Language behavior therapy: A derivative of social behaviorism. Behavior
Therapy, 3, 165-193.
Staats, A. W. (1977). Experimental-longitudinal method in assessment, research and treatment.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 323-333.
Staats, A. W. (1979). The three-function learning theory of social behaviorism: A third-generation,
unified theory. Aprendizaje y Comportamiento, 2, 13-38.
Staats, A. W. (1981). Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified theory, unified theory construction methods,
and the zeitgeist of separatism. American Psychologist, 36, 239-256.
Staats, A. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Philosophy and method for a unified science.
New York: Praeger.
Staats, A. W. (1990). Paradigmatic behaviorism and intelligence: Task analysis? technical plan?
or theory? Psicothema, 2, 29-38.
Staats, A. W. (1994). Psychological behaviorism and behaviorizing psychology. The Behavior
Analyst, 17, 93-114.
Staats, A. W. (1996). Behavior and personality: Psychological behaviorism. New York: Springer.
Staats, A. W. (1999a). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method and
research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3, 3-13.
Staats, A. W. (1999b). Valuable but not maximal: It’s time behavior therapy attends to its behaviorism.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 369-378.
Staats, A. W. (2003). The missing Psychological Behaviorism chapter in A History of Behavioral
Therapies. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 25, 23-38.
Staats, A. W. and Burns, G. L. (1981). Intelligence and child development: What intelligence is
and how it is learned and functions. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 104, 237-301.
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1
VIRUES. Psychological Behaviorism: An encounter with A. S. Staats
173
Staats, A. W. and Burns, G. L. (1982). Emotional personality repertoire as cause of behavior:
Specification of personality and interaction principles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 873-881.
Staats, A. W. and Butterfield, W. H. (1965). Treatment of nonreading in a culturally-deprived
juvenile delinquent: An application of reinforcement principles. Child Development, 36,
925-942.
Staats, A. W., Finley, J. R., Minke, K. A., and Wolf, M. (1964). Reinforcement variables in the
control of unit reading responses. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 139149.
Staats, A. W., Staats, C. K., Heard, W. G., and Finley, J. R. (1962). Operant conditioning and
fcactor analytic personality traits. The Journal of General Psychology, 66, 101-114.
Staats, A. W., Staats, C. K, Schutz, R. E., and Wolf, M. M. (1962). The conditioning of reading
responses using «extrinsic» reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
5, 33-40.
Tryon, W. W. (1974). A reply to Staats Language Behavior Therapy: A derivative of social
behaviorism. Behavior Therapy, 5, 273-276.
Tryon, W. W. (1990). Why paradigmatic behaviorism should be retitled psychological behaviorism.
Behavior Therapist, 5, 273-276.
Virués, J., Santolaya, F., García-Cueto, E., and Buela-Casal, G. (2003). Estado actual de la
formación PIR: actividad clínica y docente de tutores y residentes. Papeles del Psicólogo,
85, 37-45.
Watkins, Jr., Campbell, V. L., and McGragor, P. (1990). What types of psychological tests do
behavioral (and other) counseling psychologist use? The Behavior Therapist, 13, 115-117.
Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published
1924).
Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 5, Nº 1